I wonder if the Coaches feel that Cundiff get's better height on his kicks and is more accurate in placement of his kicks. I really wanted to see Gano grow with the team but if they feel they've got a guy now that can pooch it to the 5 yd line and give our gunners time to get down there to stop teams inside the 20 yd line, then I get it. I know they are considered similar in terms FG% but the stats are clear that Gano has a stronger leg and has hit longer range FG%

all that really matters is that Cundiff does a good job here this season

Last edited by SkinsJock on Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

P A T I E N C E - The Redskins will improve the product on the field if Dan Snyder just let's Scott & his FO do their jobs Dan needs to stop screwing things up and let Scott get this franchise back together

In the bigger picture, Gano at least appeared to have long-term potential.

I'm now thinking, however, that maybe the coaches told him last year what areas they needed to see improvement in his mechanics (or whatever), and he didn't show enough this preseason to impress them. So they never really planned on having him take the job, but then Rackers didn't prove much better.

But who knows.

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan

markshark84 wrote:Not a good move at all. I see a David Akers type thing happening with Gano.

This just makes no sense. Cut a younger, better kicker for a lesser, older one......

I hope Gano (& Rackers) have great success in the NFL - it means NOTHING

Cundiff won the job from Gano in Baltimore and I just don't see it as that big a difference

My 2 Cents

P A T I E N C E - The Redskins will improve the product on the field if Dan Snyder just let's Scott & his FO do their jobs Dan needs to stop screwing things up and let Scott get this franchise back together

markshark84 wrote:Not a good move at all. I see a David Akers type thing happening with Gano.

This just makes no sense. Cut a younger, better kicker for a lesser, older one......

1. I think the Akers thing is a bit much...2. Gano is better from long distance, Cundiff is better from mid-range/kick offs. So "better" is subjective.

Everyone lost their mind when we cut Gafney... FYI, the Patriots just cut him too, he didn't even last to the final round of cuts.

Let's not overreact.

I understand your point, but for some reason players that leave the skins tend to blow up the next place they land....

It usually takes a kicker a couple years to get into their grove and I am just afraid we weren't patient enough, but who knows. My better was based off of % made, % made over 40, and touchbacks. I personally think those are the best indicators. Gano was 4-6 from 50+; Cundiff 1-6. Gano was 8-11 from 40+; Cundiff was 7-9. From 40+ total Gano was 12-17 vs. Cundiff of 8-15. Gano had some serious issues from 30-39, but I think that would have improved with time.

And honestly, one of the main reasons Cundiff made the pro bowl in 2010 was because he only had 1 attempt of over 50 yards that year. He is a career 29% from over 50 yards. I think this is a serious weakness. IMHO, that lengthens the field significantly.

And personally -- I was not upset about Gaffney AT ALL. In fact, I thought it was a smart move based on his salary.

markshark84 wrote:And honestly, one of the main reasons Cundiff made the pro bowl in 2010 was because he only had 1 attempt of over 50 yards that year.

I agree, I'm concerned about it too. I'm not 100% gungo, Mike can do no wrong. LOL

But, I also believe our reliance on the kicker will diminish. Our redzone offense wont be as bad. I think more often than not, we'll get within Cundiffs... I was going to say "sweet spot" but, I'll digress.

markshark84 wrote:And personally -- I was not upset about Gaffney AT ALL. In fact, I thought it was a smart move based on his salary.

Thats cool, just an example of us needing to take a "wait & see" approach.

markshark84 wrote:And honestly, one of the main reasons Cundiff made the pro bowl in 2010 was because he only had 1 attempt of over 50 yards that year.

I agree, I'm concerned about it too. I'm not 100% gungo, Mike can do no wrong. LOL

But, I also believe our reliance on the kicker will diminish. Our redzone offense wont be as bad. I think more often than not, we'll get within Cundiffs... I was going to say "sweet spot" but, I'll digress.

I hope you're right. I think a lot of people think our offense will instantly take off. I want to stress that when you have a rookie QB it will take time -- regardless of how highly touted he is. Even Peyton threw 26 INTs in his rookie year.

I am in the camp that your reliance on a kicker will never diminish and will always be vital to your success. You will always need a very good kicker because in a game of inches like football every inch, yard, point, etc. is extremely important. What separates the good from the mediocre is very small -- 3 points a game can be that difference.

markshark84 wrote:I am in the camp that your reliance on a kicker will never diminish and will always be vital to your success. You will always need a very good kicker because in a game of inches like football every inch, yard, point, etc. is extremely important. What separates the good from the mediocre is very small -- 3 points a game can be that difference.

But some teams rely on it more than others. Baltimore being a prime example in the past, all they did was kick FG's.

markshark84 wrote:And honestly, one of the main reasons Cundiff made the pro bowl in 2010 was because he only had 1 attempt of over 50 yards that year.

I agree, I'm concerned about it too. I'm not 100% gungo, Mike can do no wrong. LOL

But, I also believe our reliance on the kicker will diminish. Our redzone offense wont be as bad. I think more often than not, we'll get within Cundiffs... I was going to say "sweet spot" but, I'll digress.

I hope you're right. I think a lot of people think our offense will instantly take off. I want to stress that when you have a rookie QB it will take time -- regardless of how highly touted he is. Even Peyton threw 26 INTs in his rookie year.

I am in the camp that your reliance on a kicker will never diminish and will always be vital to your success. You will always need a very good kicker because in a game of inches like football every inch, yard, point, etc. is extremely important. What separates the good from the mediocre is very small -- 3 points a game can be that difference.

Well if his kickoffs are better and he gets more TB then he will be taking more points off for the other team right? Then how about when they punt 5 or 10 yards futher back too? That could be more points for us.

markshark84 wrote:I think a lot of people think our offense will instantly take off. I want to stress that when you have a rookie QB it will take time -- regardless of how highly touted he is. Even Peyton threw 26 INTs in his rookie year.

I'm one of those. Cam Newton threw 21 TDs and 17 INTs last year. I happen to think RGIII is going to rewrite the rookie marks Cam set last season. I don't care about how highly he is touted. I care about what I have seen of him so far. I think he is going to set the NFL on fire.